After consecutive Coulter controversies and embarrassments at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2006 and again in 2007, many conservative bloggers and sponsors of, arguably, the most important conservative national annual gathering, beseeched CPAC not to invite her back in 2008.

BRAD BLOG readers will remember Coulter’s deliberate attack against John Edwards – using the F-word (faggot) – having garnered literally worldwide attention and precipitating a rare response from the CPAC, after she uttered her slur at last year's conference on March 2, 2007.

So bad was the coverage, and so offended were so many of the sponsors and bloggers who covered the event, Coulter's appearance was scrubbed from the commemorative post-conference DVD collection of speeches.

Eschewing honor, CPAC has chosen deception instead. For almost a year, people wondered whether Coulter --who has been exposed, as well, as a felonious vote fraudster during that same period --- would be invited back for the 2008 edition set for this coming February in Washington D.C.. CPAC's website conspicuously failed to list any invitees, even though in years past, they posted lists as early as possible to promote their event.

Would CPAC risk losing sponsors and the support of conservative bloggers by inviting Coulter to speak at CPAC 2008? Or would CPAC risk the wrath of Ann Coulter, Inc., and withhold that invitation? Who would win out: principled sponsors and bloggers or the controversial pundit, arguably the conference’s biggest annual draw, who stole the spotlight in previous conferences?

Faced with a moral and political dilemma, CPAC chose duplicity over integrity…

Coulter at CPAC 2008

Would Coulter be invited to speak at CPAC 2008? The Washington Times, themselves a sponsor of this year's event, split the difference with a wink and a nod “Yes…and no,” they recently reported in an “Inside Politics” squib.

Coulter will be back – sort of, unofficially…ish – at CPAC in 2008.

She’ll be there, if not officially invited by CPAC, as the Washington Timesreported plugged (while failing to disclose their own CPAC sponsorship) earlier this month [emphasis added]:

After two consecutive headline-making speeches at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), many wondered whether best-selling author Ann Coulter would be invited to address CPAC '08, scheduled for Feb. 7-9 at Washington's Omni Shoreham Hotel.

The answer: Yes ... and no.

While Miss Coulter has not been invited to speak at CPAC, she will appear during the conference at a separate event sponsored by the Young America's Foundation (YAF), Human Events, Townhall.com, Citizens United and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute.

But those who want to hear Miss Coulter at CPAC will have to act fast. Her speech, YAF officials say, will be given at 3:30 p.m. Friday, Feb. 8, in the Omni Shoreham's Palladian Ballroom, which has a standing-room-only capacity of 1,200. But YAF officials say the event will be "theater style," which reduces the maximum seating to 500.

Given that CPAC usually attracts 5,000 people, the Coulter speech is likely to become a hot ticket and YAF is making free tickets available in advance: "You are responsible for registration with CPAC through www.cpac.org.This event is a supplement to the general CPAC program and you are not eligible to sign up if you are not registered for the whole conference."

Therefore, anyone not already registered for CPAC must register now and then contact YAF — at www.yaf.org, or by phone at 800/USA-1776 — if they want to hear Miss Coulter's speech.

David Keene Accountable

David Keene, Chairman of event organizer, the American Conservative Union (ACU), has final authority over all things CPAC. Although the ACU technically did not invite Coulter to speak at CPAC 2008, Coulter has nonetheless been given a de facto invitation – to a "supplemental" CPAC event.

Keene tried to hide the truth through surrogates and deception, but the truth is inescapable.

Requiring CPAC registration to attend Coulter’s event strongly suggests Coulter has been invited to speak – again – for CPAC. According to a reliable source, the Palladian Ballroom, where Coulter is slated to speak, is reserved for CPAC from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. on that day. Coulter will be speaking at the exact same location as CPAC, using the same facilities, with the same security personnel, sponsored by the key organizers of CPAC.

Those three primary sponsors of CPAC (after ACU themselves) combined with other sponsors to showcase Coulter during CPAC, requiring CPAC registration for admittance to her speech in a room reserved for CPAC.

But, other than that, "Coulter has not been invited to speak at CPAC."

Integrity – Where Did It Go?

If Keene is trying to absolve himself from any responsibility for Coulter controversies at CPAC 2008, his ruse has failed. His attempt to fool those principled sponsors and responsible bloggers who oppose a CPAC-invitation for Coulter was dishonorable and has been exposed.

Instead of taking a principled position --- one way or the other --- Keene chose to appease Coulter, trick his sponsors and befuddle bloggers. Clearly, CPAC has adopted Orwellian propaganda techniques utilized masterfully by Coulter herself --- specifically, newspeak and doublethink. With newspeak, "invitation" has been defined as something else. Using doublethink, Coulter has not been invited by CPAC, but CPAC resources are at her complete disposal during her speech at CPAC.

Where is the integrity conservatives profess and purport to possess?

Looks like that integrity won't be at CPAC this year. Even if Ann Coulter will.

===

Daniel Borchers is the founder of Citizens for Principled Conservatism and an occasional guest contributor to The BRAD BLOG, for whom he attended and covered CPAC in 2006 (read his coverage of Days 1, 2, and 3), and was forced, by Ann Coulter's security team, to leave its premises in 2007, despite having been a registered attendee.

When you use the term "felonious vote fraudster", it
sounds to me like hate speech. The liberal position on
voting is to require no I.D.,and to let everyone easily
vote without impedence. Coulter was simply trying to
protect the location of her place of residence from "left wing wackos",
(not hate speech, simply an attitude concerning a system
of belief, i.e. communism, facism, liberism, ect.) Now
when she used the term "faggot" to describe John Edwards,(actually not to describe him), it was intended
as a joke. There was no animus as all liberals embrace
the lifestyle as heroic, so why the contempt? It is a
wonderful lifestyle, right?

When you use the term "felonious vote fraudster", it sounds to me like hate speech.

Um...she voted under fraudulent pretenses, which is a felony, as she knows because she signed the oath on the registration form attesting that "the above" was all true under the specific felony penalties listed on it. She's also a lawyer, so there's no excuse no matter what.

The Palm Beach City Police Report said it appeared that she committed not just one, but two 2nd-degree felonies, and one 1st-degree misdemeanor.

Not sure where the "hate speech" is in the description of her as a "felonious vote fraudster". It's, quite literally, an accurate description of what she did.

The liberal position on voting is to require no I.D.,and to let everyone easily vote without impedence.

Actually, no it isn't. "Liberals" as you call them, and as I assume you're referring to those who aren't Republicans who describe themselves (incorrectly) as "conservative", seem to have no problem with requiring identification for voting, as virtually every state requires some kind of ID, and the federal Help America Vote Act (passed overwhelmingly by a bi-partisan majority in Congress) already requires ID for every new registration.

The objection is the draconian Photo ID polling place only (not absentee) restrictions that keep people from being able to cast a legal vote when they don't have a drivers license for example. Many such laws put in place by Republican anti-democracy operatives don't even allow Military ID as a valid form of voting ID, because they are simply trying to keep folks from voting. Such laws are usually found to be unconstitutional Jim Crow era poll taxes. But Republicans keep trying to pass them anyway, for one reason only: to keep Democrats from being able to vote.

Coulter was simply trying to protect the location of her place of residence from "left wing wackos", (not hate speech, simply an attitude concerning a system of belief, i.e. communism, facism, liberism, ect.)

That said, your apology for Coulter doesn't stand up. As an attorney, she knows there are ways to ensure that her private residence doesn't make it onto the public record. Her address was already on that public record (Palm Beach County appraiser website) prior to her feloniously signing under the wrong address on her voter registration form, drivers license form, and then knowingly voting at the wrong precinct.

Furthermore, the bullshit you've bought from her about this holds up even less, if you're suggesting that the "left wing wackos" should instead attack her real estate agent whose address she *did* give, and without warning or notice to that agent.

So you and Coulter are okay with some undocumented fear of "left wing wackos" burning down the real estate agents house, but not hers?

I'll presume you were unaware of the facts of the case in your statements above, and not that you are utterly incapable of understanding bullshit when it's sold to you, as Coulter has clearly done.

Now when she used the term "faggot" to describe John Edwards,(actually not to describe him), it was intended as a joke.

That wasn't "hate speech" either right?

Amazing the hypocrisy you folks are willing to embarrass yourself with on behalf of folks who have played you for suckers for years.

There was no animus as all liberals embrace the lifestyle as heroic, so why the contempt? It is a
wonderful lifestyle, right?

I'm going to assume you actually mean to make such an absurd apology for her behavior, even though it's hard to imagine someone could write that with a straight face.

By your logic, I guess it's okay if I call Jews "Jesus Killers" or "Kike" because hey, all Christians embrace the lifestyle of Jews as the basis for their own religion, so why would that be seen as contemptable? Judaism is a wonderful religion right?

Not that I'm done giving you the benefit of the doubt, on the above, I'll add that your rationalization for the appalling, dangerous, and illegal behavior and words of Coulter is beneath contempt.

But you don't seem to mind being played for a chump, so I guess the comments above won't bother you either.

(And I hope you realize the article you're replying to was written by a Christian Conservative. A real one. On both accounts. Unlike, apparently, yourself.)

Wackos flock to the GOP for the same reason pedophiles flock to the catholic priesthood.

It provides cover.

And the devotees/fans of the GOP and c. priesthood are steeled against anyone who would dare to question the absolute integrity of those institutions. And that mentality is the doorway to corruption and yet more cover up.

The wise institution is one that rejects the flim flam at the door, and the one that nips it in the bud.

CPAC is not a wise institution, and Mr. Borchers is serving the interests of principled conservatives by exposing the calamity that is in CPAC's future.